Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas at Maxwell's

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. the improvements made certainly helped the cause JForget 00:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas at Maxwell's

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy nominee. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable film spammed here by the film's "producer". Fails WP:N and WP:NF. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also see this and this. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its ability to meet WP:NF through WP:GNG. No matter who put it here, now that it IS here, it belongs to Wikipedia and editors serve the project by improving it through regular editing... just as I am about to do. Back in a while. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been cleaned up, slightly expanded and sourced. More yet to do. Assistance in further improvements would be most welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. You can clean it up, expand it, add all the references you want, and then put a bow on it, but this is still an insignificant film that fails WP:NOTFILM. LargoLarry (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I must disagree. Cleaning something up, expanding it, and adding references is exactly what guideline instructs when it advises regular editing. Certainly a big-budget, highly publicized and promoted blockbuster will get more press than a small-time independent, WP:NF instructs meeting WP:GNG in order to merit an article. As it's ours now, my contributions we offered to improve something added by a newcomer who received no welcome, and who had a COI and showed lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Being helpful to a newcomer is no crime, and making an article better improves the project... bow or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided with the article show marginal notability, but it has been mentioned in mainstream sources. I'm leaning keep on this one. Angryapathy (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do all the results from Google news [1] and the two reviews mentioned in the article, not count as notable? Dream Focus 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the improvements by MichaelQ, the article shows that the subject meets the criteria of WP:N which trumps any and all other specialized notability guidelines, including WP:NF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.